A Simulation‐Based Multiple‐Objective Optimization for Designing K‐Stacks Autonomous Valet Parking Lots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomous valet parking has drawn wide attention these years. The k‐stacks layout, known for its ability to increase parking capacity by stacking vehicles more compactly, is of great practicality among all possible layout patterns. Although this layout can increase the capacity of a parking lot, it generates relocations, which let vehicles move additional distances and influence the lot’s peak hour service ability. For the sake of optimizing them all simultaneously, we propose a simulation‐based multiple‐objective optimization (SMOO) and use NSGA II to solve the problem, obtaining candidate solutions. Then, a nondominated sorting based on cumulative advantages (NSCA) method is put forward to select the most robust solution from all candidates, considering different demand scenarios. K‐stacks parking lots optimized by the SMOO can provide 36%–59% more parking spaces than a traditional parking lot while keeping other evaluations fine. In addition, we specify high‐demand and low‐demand scenarios and discuss the impact of different aspect ratios. It is recommended to use k‐stacks layouts when a lot’s length is close to its width.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".